COMMENT Less Is More: Why a Preponderance Standard Should Be Enough for Trademark Abandonment Jonathan B. Schwartz* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1347 I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1348 A. Pre-Lanham Act Trademark Abandonment ...................... 1350 B. Post-Lanham Act Trademark Abandonment ..................... 1351 C. Case Law on the Evidentiary Standard ............................ 1354 1. PTO Proceedings ...................................................... 1355 2. Infringement Actions Involving Abandonment ....... 1356 a. Decisions Supporting Preponderance Evidentiary Standard .............................................................. 1357 b. Decisions Supporting Clear and Convincing Standard .............................................................. 1358 c. Decisions that Adopt Neither Evidentiary Standard Explicitly .............................................. 1359 II. GROCERY OUTLET ................................................................... 1360 A. Facts, Procedure, and Holding ......................................... 1361 B. Judge Wallace’s Opinion .................................................. 1362 C. Judge McKeown’s Opinion ............................................... 1363 III. ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1363 * Editor, UC Davis Law Review. J.D. Candidate, UC Davis School of Law, 2009; B.A. Political Science, Brandeis University, 2006. Thanks to those who helped me write, rewrite, plan, organize, edit, cut, paste, shorten, lengthen, shorten again, delete, undelete, bluebook, and cite check. I know it takes a village to produce a scholarly article, and I am very appreciative and proud of my little village at the law review and law school. A special thanks to my family and friends for their unwavering support, love, and encouragement. 1345 1346 University of California, Davis [Vol. 42:1345 A. Case Law Supports a Preponderance Standard ................ 1364 1. Decisions in Infringement Actions Support Preponderance Standard .......................................... 1364 2. The Federal Circuit and CCPA Have Adopted a Preponderance Standard .......................................... 1368 B. The Legislative Intent of Congress in the Act Supports a Preponderance Standard .................................................. 1368 1. Congress Created Statutory Aids to Ease Challenger’s Burden ................................................. 1369 2. Congress Eased Challenger’s Burden by Modifying Statutory Language ................................................... 1369 3. Congress Facilitated Removal of Abandoned Marks from Federal Trademark Register ............................ 1370 C. Policy Considerations Favor a Preponderance Standard .. 1372 CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 1374 2009] Less Is More 1347 INTRODUCTION ABC, a large grocery chain, aspires to become more competitive by acquiring smaller grocery chains.1 Whenever it acquires a competitor, ABC rebrands and converts the acquired stores to its trademark.2 It then eliminates all vestiges of the acquired entity’s mark.3 A competitor, XYZ, concludes that GREAT NAME, one of the trademarks no longer used by ABC, is appealing.4 Years after ABC has ceased using the GREAT NAME mark, XYZ decides to register and use GREAT NAME for its stores.5 When ABC learns of this, it seeks to preserve GREAT NAME for its own use and files a trademark infringement action against XYZ.6 As an affirmative defense, XYZ asserts ABC abandoned the trademark.7 This Comment examines the standard of proof for trademark abandonment for nonuse under the Lanham Act (the “Act”).8 Some courts apply a preponderance of the evidence standard.9 Others apply the more stringent clear and convincing evidence standard.10 1 The following hypothetical is based in part on the facts of Grocery Outlet Inc. v. Albertson’s Inc., 497 F.3d 949, 949-54 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 2 See generally Strategic Name Development, Company Naming Changes 2006, http://www.namedevelopment.com/company-naming-changes.html (last visited Feb. 11, 2008) (noting rebranding after acquisition is not uncommon and 1,900 companies located in America changed names in 2006); id. (stating 34% of company name changes in 2006 occurred as result of merger or acquisition). 3 See supra notes 1-2. 4 See supra note 1. 5 See supra note 1. 6 See supra note 1. 7 See supra note 1. 8 Federal Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127 (2006). See generally Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423-24 (1979) (explaining that evidentiary standard is more than empty semantic exercise and reflects societal values). 9 See infra Part I.C.2.a. See generally 2 GEORGE E. DIX ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 339 (Kenneth S. Broun ed., 6th ed. 2006) (explaining that most acceptable view of preponderance in civil litigation is proof that leads jury to find existence of fact is more probable than nonexistence); J.P. McBaine, Burden of Proof: Degrees of Belief, 32 CAL. L. REV. 242, 246 (1944) (suggesting preponderance is equivalent of probably true, whereas clear and convincing is equivalent of highly probably true); Vern R. Walker, Preponderance, Probability, and Warranted Factfinding, 62 BROOK. L. REV. 1075, 1076-77 (1996) (exploring alternate meanings of preponderance). 10 See infra Part I.C.2.b. The clear and convincing standard places a higher burden upon the challenger than a preponderance standard. See generally United States v. Valenzuela-Puentes, 479 F.3d 1220, 1228 (10th Cir. 2007) (endorsing view that judge should instruct jury they must be persuaded truth of contention is highly probable); Angelia P. v. Ronald P., 623 P.2d 198, 204 (Cal. 1981) (stating clear and convincing 1348 University of California, Davis [Vol. 42:1345 Moreover, many courts use imprecise language, subject to varying interpretations.11 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confronted, but did not resolve, this issue in Grocery Outlet Inc. v. Albertson’s Inc.12 This Comment argues the appropriate standard under the Act is a preponderance of the evidence.13 Part I reviews principles of trademark abandonment, the legislative history of the Act, and case law addressing the evidentiary standard in trademark abandonment proceedings.14 Part II discusses the facts, procedure, and holding of Grocery Outlet.15 Part III argues the appropriate evidentiary standard for trademark abandonment proceedings under the Act is the preponderance of the evidence standard.16 Therefore, federal courts should explicitly adopt a preponderance standard.17 I. BACKGROUND A trademark is a word, name, symbol, device, or any combination thereof, used to identify and differentiate goods or services.18 Common law protects and recognizes trademarks.19 One may also evidence must be strong enough to command unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind); 2 DIX ET AL., supra note 9, § 340 (explaining variants of clear and convincing include clear, convincing, and satisfactory; clear, cogent, and convincing; and clear, unequivocal, satisfactory, and convincing); McBaine, supra note 9, at 246, 253-54 (observing that clear and convincing standard may best be explained as requiring jury to conclude truth of contention is highly probable). 11 See infra Part I.C.2.c. 12 497 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 13 See infra Part III. 14 See infra Part I. 15 See infra Part II. 16 See infra Part III. 17 See infra notes 240-44 and accompanying text. 18 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2006); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 209 (2000) (noting trademark protection has been extended to design); Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) (extending trademark protection to color and referencing protection afforded to NBC television’s distinctive chimes); Nabisco Brands, Inc. v. Conusa Corp., 722 F. Supp. 1287, 1288 (M.D.N.C. 1989) (recognizing shape of LIFESAVER candy); In re Clarke, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1238, 1239 (T.T.A.B. 1990) (protecting sewing thread with floral fragrance). See generally 1 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 3:1 (4th ed. 2007) (explaining different types of trademarks). 19 See Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U.S. 403, 413 (1916) (stating that common law of trademarks is part of broader law of unfair competition); In re Trade- mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 92 (1879) (explaining trademarks and their functions); McLean v. Fleming, 96 U.S. 245, 255 (1877) (noting courts protect trademarks so party may not sell off goods as those of others). 2009] Less Is More 1349 register a trademark to acquire additional federal statutory protection under the Act.20 One may only acquire the right to a trademark through use, not mere adoption.21 This requirement exists because only active use allows the public to associate a mark with particular goods or services.22 In addition, one must associate the mark with a product.23 This is traditionally accomplished by affixing the mark to the product or displaying the mark near the point of sale.24 20 Federal Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127 (2006). First, a trademark registration under the Lanham Act gives constructive notice of ownership. Hearings on H.R. 3685 Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Admin. of Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 96th Cong. 5 (1979) (statement of Sidney Diamond, Assistant